p. 189Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury: The duty now devolves upon me of endeavouring to lay before the Court the case upon which the defendants rely in answer to the application of the plaintiffs, for an injunction restraining their liberty of speech and action in the important matters of conviction which they entertain. In proceeding to the discharge of that duty. I confess to the overpowering presence of one feeling in my mind. I am burdened with a fear that I shall fail to do justice to the momentous cause that has been placed in my hands. It is not without reason that I entertain this fear. The matters affected by the trial are so gigantic and far-reaching, that I feel to stagger under their weight. They ramify so extensively into almost every department of human knowledge; and the issue that hangs on them is so momentous—I do not mean the possible abridgment of the personal liberty of the defendants—for that is a comparatively small matter—but the question of whether or not their convictions are true, and whether, therefore, there is any hope for human life in its present chaotic and enigmatical condition upon earth—such hope, I mean, as is germinally contained in the fact of Christ’s resurrection. I say, the whole issue is so stupendous, and of so varied and intricate a complexion, that you may well understand the misgivings with which I essay to represent the case for the p. 190 defendants to the Court. I fail even in these expressions, my Lord, to indicate the particular nature of the feelings that oppress me at the outstart. If you can realize that, to the very depths of my heart, I am convinced the defendants entertain no phantasy in believing in the resurrection of Christ, but hold that which is an undeniable and glorious truth, containing within it the most blessed possibilities for every man laying hold of it, you may understand my fear that I may fail to make that adequate exhibition of the case which will carry conviction.
My Lord, I might object to the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that it has no power to grant an application inconsistent with the whole spirit of the British constitution. I might contend that nothing but a special statute, passed by both Houses of Parliament, and endorsed by the royal assent, could empower the Court to restrain that freedom of speech which is the glory of the British citizen, and has been the most powerful weapon in the achievement of British greatness. But, my Lord, I am content to leave unsaid all that might be forcibly said on that subject. I am content to assume the competency of the Court, which the action of the plaintiffs takes for granted. I prefer to come fully in front of the issue they have raised, and to argue, on the broadest grounds, that their application is inconsistent with the plea on which they profess to establish it, and that the defendants, instead of being injurers of society, are the greatest benefactors it has anywhere, in seeking to rivet attention upon a matter which—more than all others put together—concerns its welfare, and contains the hope and the means of true advancement in that well-being which the best of mankind have always desired. In doing so, I am content to drop the question of whether the defendants have injured themselves in the course they have pursued, or the question of the specific injury which the plaintiffs say they do to society.
I admit that, judged by the limited standard of present experience, it might appear as if there was a certain amount of injury arising out of the proceedings of the defendants. They are individually isolated, without p. 191 doubt, from much that is gratifying and advantageous to life, in a certain way; and the world is doubtless deprived of a co-operation on their part which might be to the world’s advantage, to the extent of the ability and goodness of the defendants. But, even were I disposed to discuss this part of the question, I could not admit that injury, and nothing else, results from their course. I would contend that, as regards themselves, they are gainers by the views they entertain, in so far as the attainment of moral and intellectual satisfaction is a gain to human life, and in so far as a man is a gainer who gains a power of moral elevation and ennoblement that he lacks in the state of aimless life that belongs to the doctrines of the plaintiffs. And I would contend that, as regards the world, the adoption of their views by any considerable section of society could not fail to be real advantage to the world, in so far as it would render the world a more friendly, trusty, and pleasant world than it is under the reign of unregulated self-interest that prevails under the present system.
But, my Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, I leave all that. I am anxious to concentrate the whole attention of the Court. I am anxious to devote the whole of my strength to one point, or rather, one aspect of the case, which involves many points. I am anxious, above all things, my Lord, to urge that, whatever consequences may be shown to spring out of the course pursued by the defendants, as regards the present bearing of these consequences, they are not for one moment to be considered side by side with the momentous fact, that the course of the defendants is justifiable on the ground that the belief which impels them to that course is a true belief, and no lie: that Christ really rose from the dead, and is now alive, and vests in his own person the purpose of Eternal Wisdom concerning the earth we inhabit, and the at present unhappy, though in many points noble, race to which we belong.
And now, my Lord, I confess I feel somewhat at a loss how to proceed in developing this stupendous proposition before you. I shall call some of the defendants, p. 192 who will briefly lay before you the reasons of their procedure—the grounds of their conviction that Jesus Christ, of Nazareth, now lives, will re-appear on the earth at the appointed time to consummate the divine purpose of which he is the instrument and executioner. Those grounds have already, in large measure, become apparent in the course of the questions which we felt it our duty to address in cross-examination of the witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiffs. They involve matters of a palpable and historical character. They are not matters very recondite. They are not matters in a corner. They are not matters of speculative opinion: they do not depend upon any profoundly-reasoned philosophical system. They relate, rather, to affairs of a very practical character, and of a very world-wide notoriety.
To begin with, my Lord, we have the name of Christ in our midst. We live in a widely-extended geographical area, which is known as Christ-endom. Here is a fact before our eyes everywhere—the name of Christ ingrained in the system of things by which we are surrounded—the name of Christ indelibly written in the constitution of the world—the name of Christ so inwrought with the fabric of our daily life, that we cannot even issue an invoice, or execute a deed, or even write a letter, without Christ appearing on the face of it in the date, which tells to what A.D. (year of our Lord) the matter pertains. Now, my Lord, this fact calls for explanation. It must have an explanation. Such a fact as the ascendancy of one particular name in all the realms of civilization must be due to circumstances of such an extraordinary character as to adequately account for it. The ascendancy of that name could not come of itself. It has not sprung out of the ground: it has not come mysteriously out of the atmosphere: it must have a history. My Lord, it has a history, and it is on that history that I rely, as furnishing both a rational explanation of the ascendancy of the name of Christ during all the centuries of the Christian era, and the irrefragable ground of those convictions which impel the defendants to the course complained of by the plaintiffs.
p. 193 I would not, however, wish your Lordship to understand that the convictions of the defendants depend wholly upon that history. Far from it. Their convictions are justified—nay, necessitated—by a variety of other matters and facts to which I may have to advert. But what I say here is, that the history of the matter alone is sufficient to warrant that conviction.
That history we derive from a variety of sources: but, my Lord, I am content with one form of that history alone. I am content with the official history of the matter, which as far transcends all other histories as the sun at noonday transcends the gas lights on the streets at night. I refer, as your Lordship may be aware, to the New Testament, and in referring to the New Testament, I refer to another matter of world-wide fact and notoriety. The New Testament is a public document. It is a numerously circulated document. It is a document to be found in every decent house throughout Great Britain and her extensive empire. It is a book to be found in every country, and translated into every tongue: consequently, here again we stand in the presence of a very real matter-of-fact, having a logical bearing on the issue before the Jury.
In preferring the New Testament history of this matter to all others, your Lordship will allow that I only show a reasonable preference. It is to official sources that men always go for reliable information. It is those who have to do with the start of an affair who are able to tell us the facts connected with it. And the New Testament is the history of this mtater, as written by those who had to do with the start of it. There is no mistake on this point, my Lord. My friend, Mr. Discerner-of-facts, put a variety of questions to one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses for the purpose of showing this. Though a very unwilling witness, he drew from his mouth a variety of admissions which prove that in the New Testament, we have the authentic writings of the apostles. There is the uncontradicted tradition of the Christian community from the very beginning, which carries more weight with it than even the express testimony of individual witnesses, p. 194 for the New Testament is of that character that would have inevitably ensured the detection of any attempt in the beginning to palm upon the Christian community as apostolic productions, writings not written by them, but the writings of literary forgers, or literary fictionists of any class whatever. I refer to the fact that the New Testament is mainly composed of the epistles of Paul, addressed not to persons, but to churches. These letters were preserved and read habitually by the various churches to whom they were addressed, which is the best evidence of authenticity that could be produced. Besides being preserved and read by these, they were copied and circulated among all the Christian communities. They were equally used in Alexandria, and Carthage, and Gaul. They are cited by the writers of the second century as commonly and familiarly as by preachers and writers in our own day. The uncontroverted writings of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement Alexandrinus prove this; and the fact is conclusive evidence of their previous currency for a long time, and establishes their authenticity by proving them to have been received by the various communities to whom Paul’s letters were severally addressed in the first instance. No demonstration could be more complete than this. It is not in the least affected by the fact that literary forgeries were abundantly perpetrated in the second and third centuries. These forgeries only go to show that there were genuine writings in existence, commanding the confidence and influencing the lives of the Christian community from the very commencement of its existence. The forgeries, are, therefore, indirect evidence in support of the authenticity of the New Testament.
Now, my Lord, the New Testament being the authentic production of the apostles and their companions, see what follows: we have an account at first hand of the circumstances that led to the establishment of Christianity—an account by those who knew all about those circumstances, whose competency to give the account is shown by the nature of the account itself, and whose probity and sincerity are abundantly demonstrated by the adverse consequences p. 195 to which they steadily submitted for a lifetime, on account of their testimony.
What is that account? I ask your Lordship’s attention particularly to this point. It is not an account of “conversion.” In brief, it is this, that the writers were companions of Christ for a certain number of years; that they accompanied him in his journeyings, and heard his teaching, which they reproduce in these documents; that they saw his miracles, which they narrative with great chasteness and simplicity; that he was arrested by the authorities, and condemned to be crucified: that he was in fact crucified and buried; that they regarded his crucifixion as an upsetting of all their hopes in him, but that a certain number of days after his crucifixion, he appeared to them alive—appeared several times; spoke to them coherently and connectedly; ate and drank with them; allowed himself to be handled; exhibited marks of crucifixion; made appointments for meeting, which he kept, and, finally, after about six weeks of this kind of intercourse, and that after telling them that it would be their duty, after his departure, to bear testimony to all the world to these things, he took formal leave of them on the summit of the Mount of Olives, and went away from the earth.
Their account does not stop here. They tell us that just before his departure, he told them not to commence their testimony for his resurrection until he should send power upon them to work miracles in proof of their testimony to his resurrection. He told them to stay in Jerusalem till this power should come. The account goes on to inform us that they did so; that on the day of Pentecost, the tenth day after Christ’s departure, being assembled together in one place, the Holy Spirit came upon them with the power of a rushing mighty wind, filling all the place where they were, manifesting itself in a fiery appearance resting on each, and imparting to them a supernatural knowledge of languages they had not learned, and power to work various miracles. They then proceeded to proclaim the resurrection of Christ, in accordance with the command they had received; exhibiting p. 196 the miracles in token of the truth of their testimony. The effect was to cause multitudes who witnessed these things, to believe. To these multitudes was extended the same power to work miracles, so that the testimony of Christ’s resurrection spread far and wide. The authorities who had put Jesus to death naturally felt themselves compromised by these proceedings, and strove to suppress the movement. In attempting to do so, they resorted to legal proceedings. They imprisoned the apostles, and raised a great persecution against all believers everywhere. The apostles, divinely liberated, were re-arrested and recharged with the offence of proclaiming Christ’s resurrection. Their answer was, “We cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard.” Believers everywhere were steadfast under similar tribulation: the number of believers increased greatly.
Such is the account of this most important matter, and it is an account confirmed in its main features by all second-hand allusions to it. What are we to make of it, my Lord? There is no question that Christ was crucified. Jews and unbelievers are agreed on this. But neither is there any question that his disciples afterwards preached his resurrection. How came they to do so, and how came thousands of those who had crucified him to believe? If Christ rose, there is an answer. If Christ did not rise, the apostles declared what they knew to be false. Then what motive could they have? It brought them into collision with Jew and Pagan, and exposed them to incessant disadvantage. If it he said they may have sincerely believed that Christ rose though he did not, we are asked to believe something inconsistent with the facts. They did not expect Christ to die. When he died, they did not expect him to rise. When he rose, they did not believe it. All this is stated in this account, and it shows there was no predisposition to entertain a fantasy on the subject. What, then, led them to believe and preach the resurrection of Christ? The reason given for the change is a reasonable account of the change: Christ appeared to them, spoke to them, ate with them, asked them to handle him, stayed with them six weeks, p. 197 and finally sent power to work miracles upon them. If this occurred, there is an explanation of all that transpired afterwards. If this did not occur, there is no explanation of the great fact that a few poor men, whose doctrine was that they should not resist their enemies, succeeded in subverting Judaism and Paganism in the teeth of the organized opposition of both, and the effect of whose work is a fact of the present moment, inwrought with the life of all civilized nations.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I could prove Mahommedanism by the same line of argument. Mahommedanism is inwrought with the life of civilized nations.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: My friend says the same line of argument would prove Mahommedanism. Surely it is not possible my friend, on reflection, can seriously maintain such a proposition. The existence of Mahommedanism is no doubt a proof of effectual means having been taken to establish Mahommedanism in the world. We examine the facts, and we see the nature and operation of these means at once. As has been truly said, Mahomet took the way to succeed. He gave his followers a commission to exterminate the infidel, and offered life and protection to everyone who should embrace Islamism. The system is embodied in the Koran. This Koran is in the hands of millions of Mahommedans in the present day which proves it to be Mahomet’s work, for no other than Mahomet’s work could have obtained currency amongst them at the start, and none but the book current at the start could have obtained currency among their succeeding generations. Thus the existence of the Mahommedans with the Koran in their hands is a proof of the authenticity of the Koran; and an examination of their history and their documents explain their rise and success, and proves them not divine, for Mahomet in the Koran admits the divinity of Abraham, the prophets, and Christ, and thereby destroys his own claim, even if there were no other disproof; for the divinity of Christ excludes the divinity of any other “prophet, priest, and king,” which Mahomet was probably unaware of.
Now, when the history and literature of Christianity p. 198 are examined in the same way, its divinity follows as a logical result. The present existence of Christianity is only the first step in the argument. It is a great fact, calling for explanation. The explanation is contained in the Book in the hands of Christians, the authenticity of which is proved exactly in the same way as the Koran (only that there is a large amount of collateral evidence, which is awanting in the case of the Koran). No other than the genuine writings of the apostles could have obtained universal currency among Christians at the start, and none but the writings universally current at the start could have obtained universal circulation among the succeeding generations, from which it follows that the book now in the hands of universal Christendom is the authentic work of the apostles. The testimony of early and doubtful Christian writers can be dispensed with in this argument. When, in the next place, we come to look at the facts connected with the rise and progress of the system established by them, we have no such explanation as exists in the case of Mahommedanism. While Mahommet took the way to succeed, Christ took the way to fail, if no miracle was employed; for he prohibited his disciples from using the sword, and taught them to avoid, in every form, the use of physical resistance of their enemies. As a matter of fact, they did not resist, but fled from persecution, and suffered themselves, when caught, to be slain in large numbers. The State authorities employed their whole power against them; yet, in spite of this, they finally planted Christianity in the world on the ruins of Paganism. Now, as a mere matter of common reason, there must have been a cause equal to this success. It cannot be found in the nature of the principles inculcated, for these are opposed to the natural tendencies of human nature. But it is found in that which they allege in their writings to have been the cause: their testimony that Christ rose from the dead, and endowed them with supernatural gifts in attestation of their testimony. The first fact explains the constancy of the apostles, during years of suffering for their testimony. The second fact explains the great and wide-spread conviction produced p. 199 by the testimony. Take away these facts, and there is no rational explanation of an undoubted historic fact, constituting the greatest revolution the world has ever seen.
My Lord, up to this point, I have relied on the evidence of the immediate disciples of Christ, and I say that on that alone I might rest the case for the defence, substantiated as that evidence is, in the most palpable way, by the manifest fact of Christianity’s establishment in the Roman Empire in the teeth of opposition, and in the hands of a few powerless and, on the whole, illiterate men. I say that nothing short of the facts they allege can explain that extraordinary event of history. Nothing else could account for the fact of thousands of people, Jews and Gentiles, accepting the resurrection of Christ in the face of public penalty, and private ruin, and death. But, my Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have to bring under your notice, a case which is not only one of the most powerful corroborations of which such a case is susceptible, but the weight of which I do not exaggerate, when I say that it is sufficient of itself to establish the fact of Christ’s resurrection, even if we had no authentic life of Christ, and no testimony to his resurrection by those who were his actual companions before his crucifixion. It is the case of one who at first took a leading part in persecuting and destroying the believers in Christ’s resurrection, and who, in the midst of a career of implacable hostility to the name of Christ, suddenly became a preacher and defender of the faith he so zealously sought to destroy. It is the cause of the change on which I lay the greatest possible stress. Had the man in question been convinced by argument, I should not have had a word to say about his case, because, though he became one of the most energetic, indomitable, enterprising, and successful of the apostles, still if that energy and success were due to a mere alteration of opinion, produced by arguments presented by others, they would merely be evidence of his sincerity, and not of the truth of his new convictions. But because he was convinced and changed by the evidence of his senses, I claim his case as affording one of the strongest evidences of Christ’s resurrection it is possible to imagine.
p. 200 I refer, as you may have surmised, to the case of the Apostle Paul, first appearing on the scene as Saul of Tarsus, the agent and emissary of the party of the Pharisees in their opposition to the Christian movement. This Saul of Tarsus, of world-wide fame as the Apostle Paul, is a man whose individuality stands out more distinctly from the back-ground of antiquity than almost any man of similarly remote times, with the single exception, perhaps, or Jesus his Master. We not only have his biography written clearly, concisely, and distinctly, by a fellow-voyager of his, but we have a compilation of authentic letters from Paul’s own hand, written under a variety of circumstances, and dealing with a variety of matters, in which even the minute shades of his character and tendencies are visible. Between the two, we are able to form a very distinct picture of the man, and to justly estimate the bearings of his case on the matter which became the enterprise of life.
First let me show you the evidence of his original attitude—an enemy of Christ. Luke informs us, in the Acts (viii. 3), that “Saul made havoc of the Church, entering into every house, and haling men and women to prison.” And, in another place (ix. 1), he speaks of Saul “breathing out threatenings and slaughter, against the disciples of the Lord.” These representations Paul himself confirms in several parts of his epistles. Thus in Gal. i. 13, he says: “Ye have heard of my behaviour in times past, how that, beyond measure, I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it.” Again, in 1 Tim. i. 12, he says: “I was before a blasphemer and a persecutor”; and again, in 1 Cor. xv. 9: “I am not meet to be called an apostle because I persecuted the Church of God.”
The fact that Paul’s change from a persecuting to a defending attitude towards Christ, is notorious to all the world. The point I wish to emphasize is, the cause that led to the change. Of this a most clear account is given, both by Luke, his fellow-voyager, and several times by Paul himself, in his speeches and epistles. Let us take one of Paul’s speeches—one of the most interesting, perhaps, on account of the circumstances under which it was p. 201 delivered. It was delivered in Jerusalem in the midst of a public tumult directed against himself. He had been recognized in the city on his return from a preaching absence of a good many years, and a cry had been raised, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place.” This cry led to the gathering of a crowd, who seized Paul and were assaulting him, when the Roman garrison, hearing of the riot, hastened to the spot, and rescued Paul from the crowd, which had grown to great dimensions. The Roman captain asked what was the matter. Some cried one thing and some cried another. In the confusion, the captain could not make anything out distinctly, so he ordered Paul to be conveyed in custody to the castle. While ascending the stairs of that building, followed by an increasing and excited crowd, Paul asked and obtained leave of the captain to address the people. It is the address he delivered on that occasion to which I refer. It is recorded in Acts xxii. After alluding to the fact that he had been brought up amongst them, he says, “I was zealous toward God as ye all are this day; and I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women; as also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders, from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them who were there bound unto Jerusalem, to be punished. And it came to pass that as I made my journey (on the persecuting errand before referred to), and was come nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go unto Damascus, and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
p. 202 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him; and he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will, and SEE THAT JUST ONE, and shouldest hear the voice of His mouth, for thou shalt he His witness”—His witness: it was not a matter of opinion; it was not a matter of theory which Paul was called upon to embrace. It was a matter of fact of which he was allowed to be a personal witness: the fact of the existence of Christ who had been crucified. It is, therefore, a question of evidence we have to consider: “Thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast SEEN AND HEARD. And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.”
When Paul, later on, was arraigned before King Agrippa, he rehearsed these matters again. Like all truthful men who are detailing a truthful matter, although he substantially tells the same things, he does not tell them in the same words; though if the book were a concoction or an imposture, very great care would have been taken to make the story exactly the same whenever told. “I said, Who art thou Lord? and he said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest; but rise, and stand upon thy feet, for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of THESE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST SEEN, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee.” From this, it follows that Paul saw Christ, and not merely something from which he inferred his presence. If there could be any doubt upon this point, it is set at rest by Paul’s explicit declaration in 1 Cor. xv. 8: “Last of all (the apostles), he (Christ) was SEEN OF ME also, as of one born out of due time.” There is something in this expression “as of one born out of due time,” deserving attentive consideration. It touches on the nature of apostleship as p. 203 involving a qualification that brings with it a powerful element of the evidence of Christ’s resurrection. Paul says his apostleship was conferred “out of due time”— after the proper time, like a birth delayed beyond nature’s period. We may understand this when we realize that it was necessary to apostleship that a man should have been a contemporary of Christ during his natural life, and a personal witness of the various facts of his case. This comes out in the rule laid down in Acts i. 21 by the apostles, for their own guidance in the selection of a successor to Judas: “Of these men which have companied with us all the time that Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be A WITNESS with us of his resurrection.” As Paul was appointed after all these things, he declared of himself that he was as one born out of due time. But he had the essential qualification of having seen the Lord, and thus enabled to give personal witness to the fact of his having risen. This is the strong point of his testimony: “he was seen of me also.” Now, those of the plaintiffs’ way of thinking may be disposed to laugh at this, but, my Lord, one man’s evidence as to what he has seen and heard is as good as another man’s evidence, and better, when it is supported in so many collateral and powerful ways as it is in the case of Paul. Paul’s seeing Christ was not a matter of isolated curious experience. It did not stand alone in the midst of his life, without practical, effective, or logical sequel. It was followed by a career of forty years’ length, during which Paul’s particular business was to declare these things, and to apply them in a definite manner for the eternal benefit of those by whom they were received; for doing which work, recollect, he “suffered the loss of all things.”
It was not like the case of a man turning a remarkable experience to his temporal advantage. As he says to the Philippians: “I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung THAT I MAY WIN CHRIST.”
p. 204 It is impossible to explain such an attitude except on the hypothesis of Paul’s conviction that he had seen Christ. And this conviction rested upon so many grounds, that the possibility of mistake or hallucination, reason must hold to be out of the question, when all the facts are considered. The incidents connected with the revelation itself (on the road to Damascus) were such as to leave no room for deception or mistake. The whole occurrence happened exactly in the way to exclude the possibility of mistake. It happened, not at night, but in the full blaze of noonday. It did not happen when Paul was by himself, but when he was in the midst of a retinue of officials, who were witnesses of the strange phenomenon. It did not affect him only, but threw them all to the ground. It was not a sensation limited to himself; they were all overpowered by the light, and heard the voice that addressed Paul, though they could not make out the words. It did not pass off and leave no effect; it sealed Paul’s eyes, and left him blind. It did not remain isolated from a logical sequel, as a hallucination might be supposed to do: for on Paul’s arrival in Damascus (led by the hand), Ananias, the leading professor of the faith of Christ in Damascus, visited Saul, while yet with closed eyes, and cured his blindness; and this logical sequel was independent of Saul’s volition or knowledge (and, therefore, unconnected with any such hallucination as his enemies suppose him to have been the subject of): for the said leading professor—Ananias—came independently of any message from Saul, and purely as the result of supernatural instruction from Christ to do so, to which he raised objections in the first instance, on the ground of Saul’s notorious enmity to Christ.
Then, my Lord, consider how the conviction resulting from the evidence of Paul’s eyes on the way to Damascus (and surely, my Lord, as the proverb has it, “seeing is believing”), see how this conviction was confirmed subsequently in the miraculous power of which he became possessed, in common with all believers as already adverted to. His possession of this power comes out, in the most casual but explicit manner, in the course of his p. 205 epistles. For example, he says (1 Cor. xiv. 18, 19): “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all.” He says this in the course of an argument tending to depreciate the importance of speaking with tongues. Let me read it to you: “I thank my God I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.” Now as to the nature of this speaking with tongues, I incidently alluded to it in my opening remarks as to the beginning of the movement. You may recollect it is connected with the fulfilment of Christ’s promise to his disciples that (waiting in Jerusalem) he should send upon them power to give witness of his resurrection. The first manifestation of this power, when it arrived, was the speaking with tongues. We read the account in Acts ii. 11: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. . . Now when this was noised abroad the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man,”—every man of the multitude spoken of in the 5th verse: “devout men out of every nation under heaven,”—“every man heard them speak IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. And they were all amazed, and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans,”—not only Galilæans, but illiterate fishermen, who knew no tongue but their native dialect—“And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, WE DO HEAR THEM SPEAK IN OUR TONGUES the wonderful works of God.” Therefore this speaking with tongues in the apostolic days was no matter of gibberish; it was no matter of what is understood in our day by “unknown tongues”; the tongues p. 206 spoken in those days were “known”; they were the spoken languages of mankind. And therefore the question to be answered is, how came illiterate men, without previous instruction, to be able in a moment to speak the current languages of mankind? Paul says, “I thank my God that I speak with tongues more than ye all,” yet he counts it as a matter of little importance, which shows how real an experience it was in the apostolic day; for men don’t talk this way about a thing that is not happening. If it was real, it was miraculous; and if miraculous, we have another evidence of the truth of Paul’s testimony of Christ’s resurrection: for these miracles were expressly declared to be God’s confirmation of the testimony of the apostles. Then beside the speaking with tongues, we have other miracles. In Acts xix. 11 we read: “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: so that from his body were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.” Again, Acts xvi. 25: “And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God”; this is when they were made prisoners for teaching the word of God, “and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bonds were loosed.” In Acts xiii. 9-12, you have the account where Paul struck with blindness a man who was opposing him before the Roman deputy. In Acts xiv. 8-10, you have a case where he cured a man who was crippled from his infancy, in consequence of which the people of the city wanted to do him, and his companions, the honours supposed to be due to the gods, which they declined, saying that the works done were not their works, but done by God, through them, in attestation of the fact that His Son was risen, and was offered to all men for faith, that they might obtain forgiveness of sins and a title to another and a glorious life, which Christ is to develop upon the earth at his second coming.
The presence of miraculous power in the Christian community, is recognized as a fact in the most natural p. 207 way in Paul’s letters. Thus, in his argument to the Galatians about the law, he asks: “He that . . . worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?” (Gal. iii. 5). A man does not found an argument on an experience that is non-occurrent, or that is not well-konwn. Again, “To another (is given) . . . . the gifts of healing by the same spirit; to another THE WORKING OF MIRACLES; to another prophecy; to another, discerning of spirits; to another, divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. But all THESE worketh that one and the self same spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will” (1 Cor. xii. 9-11). Again, of the gospel, he says it “began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders and gifts of the holy spirit, according to his own will” (Heb. ii. 3, 4).
My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, I confidently contend, upon this evidence of miraculous activity in the midst of the original Christian community, that Paul’s seeing of Christ on the way to Damascus (which of itself, under all the circumstances, was a sufficient ground of belief) was confirmed in such a way as to leave no room for doubt of the fact, or the divine meaning of the fact. And I further contend, my Lord, that it is impossible to dispose of Paul’s whole case in harmony with the opinions of the plaintiffs. It is a case of historical fact. It is a case which must have an explanation, and I contend that it is impossible to explain it on any princple, except the simple one that Christ rose from the dead and appeared, not only to his disciples, but also to Saul, their enemy, turning him into a friend and apostle.
Paul’s case is so important that I hope the Court will excuse me if I seem prolix in calling your attention to the considerations involved in it. No reasonable man can maintain that Paul was an impostor, aiming by falsehood at selfish ends, because, as a matter of fact, his testimony cost him everything dear to man; fortune, friends, reputation, and, at last, life itself. His demeanour is inconsistent with the character of an impostor. Here is a fair p. 208 specimen: “And as we tarried there (at Cæsarea) many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle and bound his own hands and feet and said, Thus saith the Holy Spirit, so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we and they of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done” (Acts xxi. 10-14). Anyone who can imagine an impostor enacting this part has no acquaintance with human nature. Again, take the speech which Paul addressed to the elders of the Ephesian Church at Miletus, on the occasion of parting from them for the last time: “Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and many tears and temptations which befel me by lying in wait of the Jews. And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Spirit witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus to testify the gospel of the grace of God. . . I have coveted no man’s silver or gold or apparel. Yea; ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things how that so labouring, ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus: p. 209 how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts xx. 18-24, 33-35). These are not the words of an impostor. Neither were Paul’s doctrines by possibility the doctrines of an impostor. For a fair example of them, the 2nd chapter of his epistle to Titus may be read.
Perhaps, my Lord, my friend would admit that Paul was no impostor, but might suggest that he may have been a self-deceived enthusiast, a man victimized by a feverish mental illusion, which impelled him, in a state of semi-madness, to declare things that he thought true, but which were not true. The facts, my Lord, are against such a theory. The convictions Paul embraced were not such as the laws of hallucination would have predisposed him to entertain, if he were of that temperament. The conviction that a crucified claimant of the Messiahship was really the Christ, was opposed to his education as a Jew and a Pharisee, and opposed to his natural bent as a combative and energetic upholder of the law of Moses. His education as a Jew would implant the view that the Messiah, when he appeared, would be immortal, and that, therefore, Jesus, as having been crucified, could not be he; while, on the other hand, his conviction that the law of Moses was divine, and his ardent desire to signalize himself in its defence, would incline him strongly to set himself against a doctrine that a crucified Christ was the end of the law. To oppose the apostles would naturally appear to such a man to be doing God service. Hallucination in a case like Paul’s, according to the law of that disease, would have taken a form in harmony with these Judaic proclivities. The vision seen, as the result of hallucination, would have been a vision instructing him to extirpate the Christians, and championize the cause of Judaism throughout the world. Instead of that, he was arrested in the very act of giving effect to all his cherished convictions. On an expedition to destroy the Christians, he saw something which went directly in the teeth of his education—something that was in direct opposition to his purpose, and which diverted his whole energy into the very opposite channel, becoming a preacher of the faith which formerly he destroyed.
p. 210 Then the nature of the work to which he set himself was not what a self-deceived enthusiast would have undertaken, and certainly one he would not have succeeded in. He sought to turn the pagans from idolatry, the Jews from their stereotyped and lifeless Judaism, and all men from sin, with the object in all cases “that they might receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance” in the kingdom to be set up by Christ at his return. In the execution of this work he showed none of the egotism of an enthusiast. He did not seek to bring attention to himself. On the contrary, he objected to those among the Corinthians who said, “I am of Paul.” His remark on this point was, “Who is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed?” (1 Cor. iii. 5). Paul’s success is evidence that he was no mere enthusiast. That he was successful cannot be denied. The modern existence of Christendom is evidence of it. His success involved the bringing over of “a great company of the priests,” of the temple (Acts vi. 7), and the turning away of all the lesser Asia from idolatry (Acts xix. 26). How could an enthusiast, with nothing else than ignorant heated words have achieved such results? But if Paul saw Christ, and had a word of salvation from him, and if “God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul,” the success is accounted for, and, in that case, Paul was no mere enthusiast. His words are not the words of heated enthusiasm in any case. We have them in his letters and speeches written and delivered under many circumstances, and they are all cool, sober, logical words, such as a man who had seen Christ, and who was endowed with the spirit of God would write, and never such as the victim of hallucination would write.
His doings and saying are those of a clear-headed, courteous, reasonable man, accommodating himself to circumstances as the interest of the object he had in view required, which is an entire contrast to the deportment of a self-deceived victim of a deranged imagination. Thus he is personally respectful to Felix, Festus, and Agrippa, and temperate and coherent in the defence he was called upon to offer in answer to the accusation of p. 211 the Jews. Let any one doubting this read the 24th, 25th, and 26th chapters of Acts. Thus, also, he adapted himself to the various classes with whom he came in contact, in such a way as their several cases required, in regard to their acceptance of the gospel. His testimony on this point is this: “Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law. To them that are without the law as without law . . . that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak. I am made all things to all men that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor. ix. 19-22). These are not the tactics of an enthusiast, but of a sensible man with an important work in hand. Enthusiasts, who are so to the extent of being victims of self-deception, do not work in this rational way.
The same feature of calm good sense is illustrated by his avoidance of the martyrdom which the Jews were prepared to bestow upon him. The Jews formed a plot for his destruction, at the time he was a prisoner in the hands of the Romans (Acts xxiii. 12). Paul got to know of it, and informed the Roman captain. The captain sent him to Cæsarea under guard, transferring him to the jurisdiction of Felix, and afterwards of Festus. Festus sent for the Jewish council to prefer their accusation against Paul at Cæsarea. When they came, they asked Festus to try Paul’s case at Jerusalem, intending to kill him on the way thither. Paul said he was not unwilling to die if he was proved worthy of death; but he objected to be given into the hands of the Jews, and appealed to be reserved to the hearing of Cæsar at Rome. This was not the action of an enthusiast, who would have rushed with bravado into the jaws of death. It was the action of a reasonable man, who felt and tried to avoid the calamities incident to his position as an apostle, but who, nevertheless, persevered in the testimony that brought them, because he knew it was true. The same remarks p. 212 apply to the case in which he made use of his status as a Roman citizen to avoid examination by scourging (Acts xxii. 25). It was the act of a cool, and astute, and sensible man and not of an enthusiast, who would simply have blundered himself into difficulties in a heated and irrational manner, and lacked capacity or desire to extricate himself in a sensible way. Enthusiasts are usually vain, and have a conceit of their personal importance in relation to whatever hobby they have in hand. Paul’s letters exhibit the reverse of this. He says of himself that he “was not meet to be called an apostle” (1 Cor. xv. 9), and this not in a mawkish spirit of self-depreciation, but for a reason which he immediately adds, “because I persecuted the church of God.” For the same reason he styles himself “less than the least of all saints” (Eph. iii. 8), and also “the chief of sinners” (1 Tim. i. 15). In 2 Cor. xi. he apologizes for having to indulge in self-vindication in defence against the slanders of traducers. These are not the expressions of a self-deceived and egotistic enthusiast: they are just the sort of expressions to be expected from a capable man who had committed a great mistake through ignorance, but who, with all his faculties about him, had seen his mistake, and, under a deep sense of humiliation, was striving to undo the mistake of a lifetime of exertion.
If Paul was not an enthusiast, deceived by his own imagination, he certainly was not deceived by others. The occurrence which changed him from a persecutor into a defender of the Christian faith, was of such a nature as not to admit of the operation of third parties in the way of deception (Acts ix.; xxvi.). As already referred to, Paul said to Agrippa, it was a thing “not done in a corner,” but in the presence of a band of officers, and in the full blaze of the noonday sun. Paul and the whole company were struck to the earth by a light “above the brightness of the sun.” A communication was made to Paul in their presence, audible to them all, but intelligible only to Paul, as it was made in “the Hebrew tongue.” They heard the voice, but saw no man. The attempt to make a contradiction between the account, p. 213 which says they heard the voice, and the account which says they did not hear the voice, is futile. They heard the voice, but could not make out the words. So also with the difficulty of the fact that one account says they all fell to the earth, and another that “they stood speechless.” The two statements are perfectly reconcilable if we suppose the company were felled to the earth by the first burst of the brightness, and afterwards rose and stood speechless while Paul received the communication addressed to him. This is not a gratuitous supposition; for that they did rise to their feet after falling in certain, seeing they afterwards led Paul by the hand to Damascus. Two truthful accounts must be consistent with one another, even if they appear contradictory; and the lover of truth is not to be scared away from the endeavour to establish their consistency by the irrational dogmatism (unconcerned to find the truth), which says there ought to be nothing to reconcile When the incident was at an end, Paul was found to be blind, and remained blind for three days, and only had his sight restored by the healing interposition of one of the Christian disciples of Damascus whom he had come to destroy. Thus, evidence of the reality of the revelation to Paul was left behind in a way that made doubt impossible. The whole event was of a character that did not admit of third parties interposing as deceivers of Paul.
There is only one hypothesis left, my Lord, and that is, that Paul was a true man, who relates what actually occurred, to whom Christ actually appeared, who really wrought miracles, and who is, therefore, a true witness of the resurrection of Christ. I have dwelt thus at length on his case, because I feel that when rationally construed in all its elements, it affords an evidence of the resurrection of Christ that cannot be set aside, and is the best justification I can offer for the conduct of the defendants.
I have other matters to submit to the consideration of your Lordship; but it will probably be agreeable to your Lordship and the Jury, after the length at which I have been compelled to address you, to adjourn till to-morrow.
His Lordship: We are much obliged to you for your p. 214 entertaining address; but probably we shall be able to deny ourselves the pleasure of listening further at this time.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: There is prospect of a lengthy defence, my Lord.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: The subject is a large one.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: We shall see the end of it some day, I suppose.
The Court adjourned.